Michael replies: I love the term “process senescence”. Thank you for that.

@Reinder

(in your first comment)A mature person has the advantadge of experience and can therefore use that as a basis if a similar event occurs.

That's right; a mature person. But a process is not a person, nor is a process model. A process model, in and of itself, has no experience. The mature people who may have experience with the process model or without it should be able to use their experience and their knowledge in whatever way they see fit at any stage, not merely at the Optimized stage (or whatever stage at which the model says it's okay for people to use their own approach, rather than the model's).

(in your second comment)

But do we not find our justice system mature (to make another example). They have a set of rules and laws we all need to follow.

Yes. I agreed to follow that system. I voted. I agreed that if the person that I voted for were not elected, I would live with the results. The person who was elected agreed to represent all of the people in his constituency, not just those fascinated with making rules. I agree that the laws that are set down are necessary to peace, order, and good government (and that's from my Canadian citizenship; my American citizenship would go for something more radical: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). If my friends and I don't like the people who got in, we can vote them out.

But when it comes to maturity models, I didn't vote for them or the people who produced them, and I'm not a citizen of the country that they purport to govern. The people who set out these "rules" weren't elected. They are neither representative nor representatives of the people who are required to work under those rules. Nobody voted for the rulemakers. The rulemakers don't have to live with their consequences; that is, they don't actually do the work that will be governed by these rules. In many, most case, they don't know how to do that work. In many, most cases, they have a highly linear model of how to do that work. Many of the people who participated in the drawing up of the rules have given up on the process in disagreement, frustration, and disgust.

An example of a checkpoint if the test process is mature in the "optimizing" level (highest) is: "An adapt way of working by the stakeholder to suit demands of the test process is jointly evaluated by the test organization and the stakeholder".

Repeat after me: The test process does not put demands on the stakeholder. The test process does not put demands on the stakeholder. The test process does not put demands on the stakeholder. We're a service to the stakeholder. The waiter doesn't put demands on the diner; the suit salesman doesn't put demands on the buyer; the paramedic doesn't put demands on the patient.

It might be okay for the tester to put requests to the customer, or for the tester to give advice to the customer. But putting demands on someone to who you are in service is not mature. It's the opposite of maturity. It's infantile. In addition to that, once again, processes do not put demands on anybody. People do that (and immature people, in my view).

Here your statement (only by making mistakes, we learn) is applicable. A mature person (or process) should be evaluated constantly in order to improve itself.

And an immature person should not?

Answer me this: the organization, the committee that created TPI: what maturity level would it rate?

Cheers,

—Michael B.

The same applies to processes in my opinion. A maturity Model should therefore have a basic set of rules in order to shape and sustain it. But the more mature the process is, the more the model should be adapted to this.

For example in TPI NEXT, an example of a checkpoint if the test process is mature in the "optimizing" level (highest) is: "An adapt way of working by the stakeholder to suit demands of the test process is jointly evaluated by the test organization and the stakeholder". Here your statement (only by making mistakes, we learn) is applicable. A mature person (or process) should be evaluated constantly in order to improve itself.

So in conclusion, it’s not the maturity model itself that is the problem, it’s the checkpoints it uses to assess the maturity.

Thank you for the implied compliment.

You're welcome to quote me or link to my blog or Web site. If you're quoting me, attribution (letting your reader or listener know the original author was) is polite to the the author and helpful to your readers/listeners.

Cheers,

—Michael B.

Allow me to disagree with you on that.

Dude! You are welcome, encouraged, to disagree. Either we'll work it out (in which case at least one of us will learn something), or we won't (in which case there's still a strong possibility that at least one of us will learn something).

I'm not a numbers addict but our relation to processes can’t be compared on that way to family relations.

For this, I'd like to appeal to the four questions: What might happen if we did consider our processes as we consider family relations—not even exclusively that way, but partially? What might happen if we didn't consider processes and family relations in similar ways? What might not happen if we considered processes and family relations similarly? What might not happen if we didn't consider them that way? Please feel free to ponder the questions for a while before you answer.

I contend that there are excellent reasons to restore the position of qualitative measurement. One excellent reason is that qualitative measurement tends to be excellent first-order measurement—direct, obtainable with a minimum of complication, and strongly associated with human values. In fact, qualitative measures always end up taking precedence over quantitative ones. As Jerry Weinberg points out, decisions about quality are always political and emotional. We don't make decisions based on the numbers; we make them based on how we feel about the numbers. That is, whatever the number might be, we always decide based on whether we believe that the number is "good" or "bad" with respect to something that we value.

…you need to measure the results (and yes… you also need audits… it’s the human nature… you need to trust and verify): to ensure that the responsible persons are really doing what is expected.

Yes, you need to measure. But you might not need to measure quantitatively. You know, as well, that if you look at the root of the word, "audit" doesn't mean "to quantify". It means to listen. The story being told to the listener may be enriched by numbers; maybe not. It might also be distorted by numbers. I emphasize: it's not that numbers are valueless. But just as we choose our words carefully, thoughtfully, and with attention to risk, so should we do with numbers.

But this is what I believe… and everyone else is free to agree or not… no need for number on that.

+1. [grin]

@Sunjeet

I like your description. Thanks for posting it.

—Michael B.